Dinh Tran Canh v. United States of America et al
| Dinh Tran Canh |
| Bureau of Immigration Customs Enforcement, FCI Lompoc, Federal Bureau of Prisons and United States of America |
| 2:2013cv05002 |
| July 12, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| J. Spencer Letts |
| Frederick F. Mumm |
| Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
7
ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge J. Spencer Letts: The Court construes Petitioner's request to constitute notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Because respondents have not filed an answer to the Complaint or a motion for summary judgment, the notice is sufficient in and of itself to dismiss the action without further order of this Court. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (jm)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/13/2013. Respondent requests that the action be dismissed as moot now because petitioner has already received the only relief he seeks in this action, i.e., a lifting of the detainer. Under these circumstances, the Court orders petitioner to show cause within 21 days of the date of this order why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for mootness. (jm)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
